Having this knowledge allows for a more productive communication, thereby convincing him that he should change his vote. There are several factors that affects an individual decision making process and each factor plays a. Some jurors even stated that 5 minutes would be long enough and there was no more need for deliberation even though there was clearly much room for reasonable doubt. We are led to believe that this is a contributing factor to his prejudice against the defendant, accused of stabbing his own father. When Juror 9 stands up and admits that he is the dissenting voter, Juror 3 does apologize for his outburst.
I'm just a workin' man. The public area consists solely of the shared information provided during the trial. I say that you cannot think the old man's testimony is accurate because he seems to be a quiet, frightened, insignificant man who has been nothing all his life - who has never had recognition - his name in the newspapers. When the votes are counted, 11 men rule guilty, while one--played by Henry Fonda, again typecast as another liberal, truth-seeking hero--doubts the obvious. He is offended when Juror Eight says that he needs more time to deliberate and takes it as an insult related to his own quick decision.
Juror 5- He is from the projects. It means that the jury must have no doubt that the defendant is guilty to charge them. We learn that he is an architect, by trade. In the 1997 film adaptation, the role of Juror 3 went to George C. He quickly decides that the defendant is guilty because of his association with the switchblade, his checkered past, his shaky alibi, and his motive for killing his abusive father and does not understand why they need to waste time in the jury room talking about what seems obvious to him. According to Bruce Tuckman, healthy work groups need to go through four stages of development: Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. When the vote evens up, Juror 3 is ready to declare a hung jury.
This is a very sad thing. He votes guilty at the beginning but towards the end he votes not guilty. Sidney Lumet's directorial debut remains a tense, atmospheric though slightly manipulative and stagy courtroom thriller, in which the viewer never sees a trial and the only action is verbal. My boss does all the supposin', but I'll try one. Next, we will look at the concept of reasonable doubt and it means during a court case. Write down quotes that show whether the juror is being responsible or irresponsible behavior, and if the juror changes his opinion.
Because of his testimony, the jury and the reader were persuaded. Even if the top of his head is bald, he still has some hair on his sides and back of his head. He is also a charismatic speaker. He got a fair trial, didn't he? He is respectful of other juror's decisions and was the first juror to change his vote and join alongside Juror 8. That el had been going by the old man's window for at least six seconds and maybe more, before the body fell, according to the woman. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The other jurors turn away in disgust one by one until he peters out.
It took a lot of strength for me to change my vote, but I felt that Juror 8 should not stand there and be the only one on the opposing side. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. He showed himself as respectable, knowledgeable, and authentic. Juror 3 lunges at Juror 8 and shouts at him that he is going to kill him, which thereby disproves Juror 3's earlier statement about people not saying things they don't mean. It is because of this that he has a bias against the young man on trial, for the young man was born in the slums and was victim to domestic violence since the age of 5. Eight: I'm not trying to make anyone accept it. He is anxious to get the vote out of the way and is shocked when he discovers that there is one juror who sees things differently than he does.
Slyly embodied in both reticent and vital characters, Harper Lee in To Kill a Mockingbird and Reginald Rose in 12 Angry Men both create a broad representation of courage. This shows interests other than the trial at hand. He bursts, accusing the others of being crazy. In this episode, Rob Petrie is the only juror who believes the defendant to be innocent. His evidence was not arguable, because of his background.
Finally, Juror Seven decides that there is some reasonable doubt when he realizes that half of the evidence leads to the belief that the defendant is careless and dumb, while the other half of the evidence leads to the belief that the defendant is careful and manipulative. If we analyze the Johari grid of each juror we see a large hidden area in the case of all of the men. He's lucky he got it. It is because of these feelings that he is strongly cemented in his vote of guilty. You know what that trial cost? Maybe you can still smell it on me. Cobb, who played in a number of films and Broadway plays, including the detective in The Exorcist.
As the other jurors continue to review witness testimony, Juror 3 continuously interjects condescending comments. When the other jurors disagree, Juror 3 jumps up and gives a demonstration on Juror 8 about how a shorter person could kill a taller person using downward motion. The following year it was adapted for the stage, and in 1957 was made into. But having a balding while being 32 years old in the 1957 version, it's obviously premature. It's a very strange knife. All of the jurors come from very different backgrounds and see things in very different perspectives.
Film Versions In the 1957 film adaptation, we learn that Juror 3 owns a messenger service. The architect rose question as to whether or not the circumstances could be possible by re-enacting the situation. After studying different personalities and reading the play 12 Angry Men I have a better understanding of myself and those around me. And of course they should have proper evidence or theory to back their opinion. He was from a very different background than the others. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case.